It doesn't seem to be the consensus here, but the audio read to me almost as "harding working voters -- you know, in other words, white voters" rather than being a list of different demos. I admit to a very strong bias in this case, but my bias these days is primarily in Hillary putting a stop to her strategy of winning by tearing down the presumptive nominee and by underlining the racial divisions that we ought to working on healing. The nuclear option/kitchen sink stuff made a lot more sense when it had any chance of working. Now it is nothing but destructive.
This is from the editorial board at the NYT, a paper you might remember as endorsing Clinton in this race. I'm not making this stuff up, bnb. And I'm not alone in being upset about Clinton's words yesterday. EDITORIAL Sen. Clinton and the Campaign Published: May 9, 2008 There is a lot of talk that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now fated to lose the Democratic nomination and should pull out of the race. We believe it is her right to stay in the fight and challenge Senator Barack Obama as long as she has the desire and the means to do so. That is the essence of the democratic process. But we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake — for herself, her party and for the nation — if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones. We believe it would also be a terrible mistake if she launches a fight over the disqualified delegations from Florida and Michigan. The United States needs a clean break from eight catastrophic years of George W. Bush. And so far, Senator John McCain is shaping up as Bush the Sequel — neverending war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich while the middle class struggles, courts packed with right-wing activists intent on undoing decades of progress in civil rights, civil liberties and other vital areas. The Democratic Party must field the most effective and vibrant candidate it possibly can. More attack ads and squabbling will not help achieve that goal. If Mr. Obama wins, he will be that much more battered and the party will be harder to unite. Win or lose, Mrs. Clinton’s reputation will suffer more harm than it already has. She owes more to millions of Americans who have voted for her (and particularly to New Yorkers, who are entitled to expect that if she loses, she will return to the Senate with her influence and integrity intact). In addition to abandoning the attack ads, Mrs. Clinton must drop her plans to fight to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan, which defied the Democratic Party and moved up the dates of their primaries. A lot of people voted in Florida anyway, but Mrs. Clinton should not pursue this nuclear option. It would make the Democrats look unable to control their own, just when they want to make a case that they can lead the entire nation. Both candidates have been vowing in the last two days to unite the party, and Mr. Obama could do more to rein in his anonymous campaign aides and other supporters who spend their days trashing Mrs. Clinton. The undeclared superdelegates should stop their coy posing. With few exceptions, there is no reason left (other than the hope of making back-room deals) for those whose states have voted to keep their positions private. The rest should state their allegiance as soon as their primaries are held in the next few weeks. There is a lot that Senators Clinton and Obama need to be talking about in coming weeks, starting with how they will extract the country from President Bush’s disastrous Iraq war. A robust debate about health care and the mortgage crisis would remind all American voters of what is at stake in this year’s election. It would also prepare whoever wins the nomination to be a better debater and campaigner in the fall. We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” She added: “There’s a pattern emerging here.” Yes, there is a pattern — a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses.
Wow, how wrong can one be? Wow. Blacks have voted over 90% for Barack. Whites have been open minded in their choice, splitting the vote more like 60/40 for Hillary. Trying to equate the two misses the whole point of what's happened over the last several months. Barack's black support is WHY HE WON. If you split the black vote like in previous races, Hillary slays him. MAULS HIM. But instead, blacks, despite Obama not even campaigning openly for their votes or expending effort, voted for him in a monolithic, unanimous block. That was the difference in the race. The entire difference.
As my grandfather used to say, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass Blacks were very skeptical of Barack and didn't start breaking for him en mass until he proved he could garner white votes. See Iowa
I wonder how whitey mcwhitey Martin O'malley was ever elected mayor in majority black Baltimore, since it's well known that black folk only vote for other black folk, if they have the option. They were probably confused by his name and thought he was black irish.
Well Hillary's comments were probably the last nail in the coffin. This morning ABC news is reporting that Barack has overtaken Hillary in Supers! Let’s get the party started!
Exactly. White votes are more equal than black votes and to top it off, white votes come from real Americans.
If this thread represents the "healing" that will occur, congrats President McCain. The Dems will blow a great opportunity this year by putting ego ahead of the party. It's like giving steak and lobster to a donkey. Wasted.
Of course black votes -- singly -- count as much as any other vote. In the aggregate you are right. They don't count as much because the Democratic Party has them in its hip pocket. Democrats don't need to do anything more than pay lip service. In the aggregate Hispanics are much, much smarter. They are working both major parties for political goodies even though, in the end, they will support Obama over McCain by a large majority. While Hispanics are dancing with lots of partners the black aggregate pines for only one -- and I mean only one -- suitor. Republicans don't seriously court the black vote because they have no chance of winning them over. In the end this "de-empowers" the black vote. Just my own opinion from my very own ivory tower.
but we aren't talking about the general. the hispanic vote is more diverse, but there are reasons why blacks vote democratic more than because of historical factors
Yep, it was the Democrats who freed the slaves, and the Solid South for the next 100 years championed civil rights.
no but it was the democrats who held on to segregation in the south, and then the all became republicans when lbj pushed through civil rights legislation.
I'm not quite following you. Republicans have -- unsuccessfully -- chased the black vote for years. They are just not resolute about it because party people I talk to feel they have no chance and would rather expend resources on votes they can get.
